Gray Drug Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 1140 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

0
In the"M'atter of GRAY DRUG STORES, INC., EMrLoYER and RETAIL
CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, A. F. L., PETITIONER
Case No. 9-RC-42.-Decided September 29, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 17, 1948, pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election," an election by secret ballot was conducted
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for
the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio).
Upon the conclusion of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished
the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board.
The Tally shows the results of the election as follows :
Approximate number, of eligible,voters ---------- ------------- 217
Void ballots------------------------------------------------ 1
Votes cast or the Union (Petitioner)t ------------------------ 87
Votes cast against the Union (Petitioner) -------------------- 110
Valid votes counted----------------------------------------- 197
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------ 3
Valid votes plus challenged ballots--------------------------- 200
On March 22, 1948, the Petitioner filed Objections to the Election,
alleging that the Employer had improperly influenced the results of
the election and requesting that the election be set aside and a new
election directed. Thereafter, the Regional Director investigated the
objections and, on June 30, 1948, issued and served upon the parties a
Report on Objections to Election, in which he found that the objections
did not raise substantial and material issues with respect to the election.
He also recommended that the objections be overruled and that the
petition be dismissed. On July 16, 1948, the Petitioner filed exceptions
to the Regional Director's Report.
In substance, the Petitioner's objections are as follows: (1) officials
of the Employer delivered anti-union speeches to small groups of
employees on company time and property immediately before the
election; (2) the Petitioner was refused permission to solicit em-
ployees during working hours; (3) the Employer promised wage
79 N. L . R. B., No. 154.
1140
GRAY DRUG STORES, INC. 1141
increases to several employees before the election; (4) Employer
representatives threatened to abandon a proposed expansion program
if the Petitioner won the election; and (5) on the day of election,
the Employer offered to transport employees from their place of work
to the polling place.
Objection 1: As to this objection, the facts are not seriously in
issue. The Employer, with its main office in Cleveland, Ohio, oper-
ates a chain of drug stores. The election herein was limited to em-
ployees at its 15 stores located in Columbus, Ohio. During March
15 and 16, the last 2 days preceding the election, the Employer's vice
president, its general manager, and its personnel director, all of
Cleveland, together with the district manager of the Columbus stores,
toured the stores and on company time and property, spoke to the
employees individually and in small groups about the election. They
also delivered to each employee a written statement signed by the
Employer's president. The talks followed generally the subject mat-
ter of the written statement, which explained the mechanics of the
election and the Employer's opinion as to the desirability of union
representation for its employees. Although the talks clearly indi-
cated the Employer's preference for dealing directly with its employ-
ees-rather than through a labor organization, they contained no ele-
ment of coercion or promise of benefit. We find, therefore, that both
the written statements and the speeches fall within the constitutional
guarantee of free speech.
The Petitioner contends that, because the talks were given during
working hours and because the employees may have been awed by the
personal appeal of important management representatives, the con-
duct of the Employer in conveying its ideas concerning the Union
to the employees was improper. We have already held that an Em-
ployer's speech to his employees on company time and property is
not per se unlawful., We perceive no valid basis for limiting this
freedom of speech to Employer representatives, who may be low in
the managerial hierarchy. In view of the diverse locations of the
stores and the importance of uninterrupted operations, personal dis-
cussions with small groups of employees was the most practical
method available to the Employer for appealing to its employees.
Under all the circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the En7-
ployer's conduct constituted an abuse of normal campaign practices
or that it precluded an untrammeled choice by the employees in the
eaection.2 Accordingly, we find no merit in this objection. We
hereby overrule it.
1 Matter of The Babcock and Wilcox Co., 77 N L R B 577
2 See Matter of The Hinde & Dauch Paper Co, 78 N. L R B . 488; cf. Matter of
General Shoe Corporation, 77 N. L. R. B. 124.
809095-49-vol. 79-73
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Objection 2:, The Petitioner alleged that the Employer improperly
refused it permission to solicit employees during store hours while
the Employer was carrying on its own anti-union campaign. It
appears that the Petitioner requested such permission late in the,
afternoon of the second day preceding the election and that the re-
quest was granted on the following day. In view of these facts, we
do not believe that this objection raises substantial or material issues
with respect to the conduct of the election. Accordingly, we hereby
overrule the objection.
Objection 3: The Petitioner charged that, before the election the
Employer promised certain employees individual wage increases in
order to influence the employees' votes. Witnesses for the Petitioner,
who were examined in the course of the Regional Director's investi-
gation, stated that two employees had been promised raises by their.
store managers 2 weeks before the election and that another was prom-
ised a raise shortly before the election in order to equalize his pay
with that of another clerk doing similar work. The Regional Direc-
tor reported that these raises had been given in accordance with the
Employer's regular wage policy. As the Petitioner produced insuffi-
cient evidence supporting a contrary conclusion, we find this objection.
to be without merit and we hereby overrule it.
Objection 4: The Petitioner alleged that officials of the Employer
threatened to abandon a proposed expansion program if the Petitioner
won the election. The Petitioner did not submit any evidence sup-
porting this allegation. It is hereby overruled.
Objection 5: The Petitioner alleged that the Employer offered trans-
portation to all employees from the drug stores to the polling place
during election hours and that its representatives instructed employees
that voting was compulsory. The Regional Director reported that
both the Petitioner and the Employer offered such transportation to
employees and that there was no evidence indicating that manage-
ment representatives told any employees that they were compelled
to vote. The Petitioner makes no specific exception to this portion
of the Regional Director's Report. We find the objection to be without,
merit and we hereby overrule it.'
As we have overruled the Petitioner's Objections, and as the Tally
of Ballots shows that no collective bargaining representative has been
chosen, we shall dismiss the petition herein.
3 Matter of Hercules Motor Co , 73 N. L . R. B. 650.
GRAY DRUG STORES , INC. 1143
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration,of the above
Decision acid Order.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG, dissenting :
For all I know, my colleagues may have reached the right result.
But I would prefer not to say so until I know more than they appar-
ently find necessary. For example, the Regional Director's Report on
Objections reveals a sharp conflict 'between the Union and the
Employer as to the circumstances under which the Employer offered
wage increases to certain employees shortly before the election. This
raises important issues of fact. I do not see how they can be finally
resolved without our considering sworn testimony received in open
court. ' I would therefore have directed a hearing in this case, rather
than dismiss the objections on the present state of the record.